Get suggested DNS record

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns 'the currently found value(s)', setting expectations for the output. It also discloses a dependency for the 'dkim' record type. It does not describe error cases or permissions, but for a read-only GET operation this is reasonable.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence followed by a compact list of record types. Every phrase earns its place—the list is dense but structured with colons and quotes for readability. It is front-loaded with the purpose and then elaborates on the enum values, avoiding fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the core purpose and output content, but without an output schema it should more fully explain the structure of the returned data and potential failure modes (e.g., what happens if a DKIM key does not exist). It mentions a prerequisite but does not specify the behavior when that prerequisite is unmet. The tool is relatively simple, so this is not a major gap, but it prevents a higher score.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already provides descriptions for both parameters, giving 100% coverage. The description adds significant value by explaining each enum value in context (e.g., 'mx' for mail routing, 'verification' for TXT verification). This goes beyond the schema's brief descriptions and helps the agent select the correct record type.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get a suggested DNS record for a domain, including the currently found value(s) so you can check whether DNS is configured correctly.' It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('suggested DNS record'), and the enumeration of record types distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_domain_dkim by focusing on DNS records rather than key management.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides a clear usage context: 'so you can check whether DNS is configured correctly.' It also includes prerequisites (e.g., 'dkim requires DKIM keys to exist') and explains each record type's purpose, which helps the agent decide when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.